Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Jake Norwood, April 05, 2003, 01:17:58 PM
Quote from: Jake NorwoodAs for conflicts--I'm re-working prices so that it isn't so arbitrary, but so that I also don't need 1000 charts (and we all know I'm partial to charts). I'm actually trying to figure out the best way to do this.
QuoteOn the guns issue, for a narrativist game, you'd want to consider the ramifications of each sort of weapon. That actually does include how much of a threat the weapn is, but not really how much damage it does. A kill is a kill, whether it's done with a room clearing ten guage, or a .22 to the head (which is actually the traditional method of a hit, IIRC). So I'd rate weapons by how much fear they instill, and by how conspicuous they are.
Quote from: Jake NorwoodBTW, the "Lupara," or sawed-off-shotgun, was the traditional vendetta solver in sicillian families.
Quote1) It was lots of fun, but it also turned out pretty silly. I do not want silly. Part of it was the group (they're just destructive), part of it was me (as GM I blew a building up on a "botch," early on, which set the chaotic tone, making it mostly my fault, I think). Unless players are pretty serious BlackJack players things seem very random (if you're better at it they're not, but who is?).
Quote2) There needs to be lots of streamlining, and some more guidelines to set generally bad Reps from generally good ones.
Quote3) I have no idea how I really want to handle NPC's chips. I'm trying to decide if the "House" has chips (kinda like Drama dice in 7th Sea) or if each NPC has it's own chips.
QuoteFor that matter I'm thinking about having more solidly defined "stats" that don't flux, making Reputations more add-ons than everything. It goes a little against my initial design goals, but it also seems more functional. I'm even considering some "binary" Reputations or stats, like Pendragon's traits.
Quote5) Modifiers are a little sticky, still. Currently they add-on to the pot after the hand is played, meaning that if you have, say, 6 chips worth of advantages and you lose your Chips at stake, you still have 6 chips for narration/resolution, but you don't get them into your Reputations. Thoughts?
Quote from: Mike-and-Ike HolmesThis has been noted as what happens in some systems if there's nothing to indicate that play should be otherwise. Make sure that the rules concentrate on something non-silly, and it's less of an issue. Otherwise, left out in the open, players often just seem to resport to silly.
QuoteQuoteQuote: 2) There needs to be lots of streamlining, and some more guidelines to set generally bad Reps from generally good ones. Why particularly? Was there a problem in play?
QuoteQuote: 2) There needs to be lots of streamlining, and some more guidelines to set generally bad Reps from generally good ones.
QuoteNPCs can get their own chips if players invest in them. This is cool because it sets up the power split really tightly.
QuoteWere there some reps that just seemed critical in play?
QuoteHow about just using them (Modifier Chips) to modify the TN like Reps do? That is, positive modifiers add to Rep for purposes of determining success, and negative ones cancel positive ones or reps in use.
Quote from: Mike HolmesEdited to add: you haven't gone back to just playing straight up Blackjack, have you Jake?
Quote from: Jake NorwoodIncidentally, what's the most useful card to have up your sleeve. I'd say a 6. Mike? Any actual idea?
Quote from: Jake NorwoodThe realy danger in blackjack is busting, not losing to the dealer, who actually has worse chances to win than the players (as the dealer's hits are pre-determined by the 16/17 rule). As long as the player doesn't go for bust he should beat the dealer most of the time.